McCain's Mansions

[Reefer Rogue]

YouTube - McCain's Mansions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek3jAkx9m10)

He was asked how many houses he had and he couldn't recall..

Discuss

[thcbongman]

McCain is pretty out of touch with most voters, no doubt about that. Along with 5M is the minimum for being rich.

[theforthdrive]

Honestly, I disliked this video and think its shady logic at best. two reasons... first, Mrs. Gillis is/was irresponsible. She took out a huge loan she couldnt afford and didnt know what the contract even said. look, if you cant understand the contract...or have no desire to... you shouldnt be buying houses! I had a ton of friends/acquaintances that did this! they all did the same thing. they put nothing or closing costs down. and when I asked about the non-fixed payments every last one of them said the same thing... Ill refinance. WTF, Im going to hope that I can change something I cant afford into something I can later down the line is F-ing stupid. Sorry if Im harsh and youre going thru this right now but you should have known better! Second, McCain married into alot of money. Rich people buy homes as investments. while I would question all the condos he bought as investments, but thats what rich people do. you cant hate McCain because he bought something he could afford to.

I can hear you typing away ripping me to shreds and Ill close with this. Yes, McCain is an elitist douche. and you have every right to vote/ not vote for him because of this. but hate him because he passed legislation that allowed corporations to lie to people and convince them to buy homes they couldnt afford. whats driving me crazy is all this Obama Vs. McCain... every last one of the major party candidates are elitists. I had a chance to meet Romney when he flew into my airport. The man had a Citation X... the fastest passenger jet in the world... did he need that, No. But these types of videos are made by someone that wants you to vote for Obama.... not fix a messed up two party system that fails all of us!

[flyingimam]

hahaha on the funny side, he reminded of when im stoned to center of brain and cant do the simple calculation on table tabs =)))

uh, i'll have my staff to get to u, wish i could say that to the waiters ROFL!

[killerweed420]

Obama is supposed to be pretty well off too. But McCain is a pig. How can a senator own 8 homes? He can't. He's stolen fromtaxpayers and the people that actually have to work for a living. There is something sadly wrong with society when they see nothing wrong with multiple homes and $5 million salaries.

[flyingimam]

how can we just sit here and talk all this when a "senator, elected representative of the people" gets to vote on his high salary whenever they wish and then debate over 5.5 to 7.5 f-in dollars for poorest of the poor working ppl for years

Senators vote to raise their own pay | HoumaToday.com | The Courier | Houma, LA (http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20080611/ARTICLES/806110361/0/APN)

the system has fundamental flaws that need revision by "the people" not the ones in the system who are already enjoying all of its aspects

find 1 senator or major government official who is not rich by "general definition of rich"

i would say representative democracy is a good system, ours just needs some big changes and reforms, its good in its essence, but horrible in details!

[daihashi]

Obama is supposed to be pretty well off too. But McCain is a pig. How can a senator own 8 homes? He can't. He's stolen fromtaxpayers and the people that actually have to work for a living. There is something sadly wrong with society when they see nothing wrong with multiple homes and $5 million salaries.

Where's your evidence of McCain stealing from tax payers? Let's not forget that his wife is rich with all of her money from the beer company. So really if they have the money to spend then they can own as many 5 million dollar homes as they want. I could care less.

Obama on the other hand had a member of his own campaign team caught up in a mortgage scandal:

Barack Obama's Mounting Ethical Tone Deafness, Now With Jim Johnson's Mortgage Scandal - Bonnie Erbe (usnews.com) (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/erbe/2008/6/11/barack-obamas-mounting-ethical-tone-deafness-now-with-jim-johnsons-mortgage-scandal.html)

And let's not forget his ties to his slumlord friend, whom he helped get government subsidized money to build his slum housing that was known to fall apart or get condemned:

Barack Obama and his slumlord patron :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Metro & Tri-State (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article)

I own 3 cars.. do you fault me for owning 3 vehicles? Why or why not?

[painretreat]

daih: If you can afford 3 cars and the insurance, I say have all you want. Same with house's. There is nothing wrong with enjoying what you have worked hard for. That is why we worked hard.

What one does with their $, is no one's business. I say, acquisition is: Like Obama's 1 house! What a deal! I'd like that, if it did not cost my integrity (or I did not have to fool myself and the public that it was a respectful deal).

Most people I know over '70' stop using the term "can't recall" because they fear their kids will ship them to the senior home! :hippy:

[Reefer Rogue]

All i'm saying is that he should remember how many houses he owns lol.

[thcbongman]

why dont you guys get an opinion of your own and keep sounding your your quoting CNN..

WHO the FUCK cares have many homes he has.. WHAT the fuck does the matter how the country is run..

fuck!! "I only own 1 house" says OBAMA.. fucking babies.. and shame ON ALL of you who are falling into the web of distraction they are spinning....

If you love McCain that much, go fuck him.

[thcbongman]

Where's your evidence of McCain stealing from tax payers? Let's not forget that his wife is rich with all of her money from the beer company. So really if they have the money to spend then they can own as many 5 million dollar homes as they want. I could care less.

Obama on the other hand had a member of his own campaign team caught up in a mortgage scandal:

Barack Obama's Mounting Ethical Tone Deafness, Now With Jim Johnson's Mortgage Scandal - Bonnie Erbe (usnews.com) (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/erbe/2008/6/11/barack-obamas-mounting-ethical-tone-deafness-now-with-jim-johnsons-mortgage-scandal.html)

And let's not forget his ties to his slumlord friend, whom he helped get government subsidized money to build his slum housing that was known to fall apart or get condemned:

Barack Obama and his slumlord patron :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Metro & Tri-State (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article)

I own 3 cars.. do you fault me for owning 3 vehicles? Why or why not?

It isn't the fact he owns 5 houses, it doesn't matter. It's the fact he either didn't remember or tried to be deceptive. If he can't remember a simple detail about his finances, what makes you think he'll put together an effective budget that benefits most Americans? If you didn't remember or you were afraid to say you owned 3 vehicles, what does that say about you?

McCain got suckered. It doesn't mean Obama isn't out of touch like whoFARTED implied, his shit blinders, after all, Obama is pretty out of touch with his superstardom.

[daihashi]

It isn't the fact he owns 5 houses, it doesn't matter. It's the fact he either didn't remember or tried to be deceptive. If he can't remember a simple detail about his finances, what makes you think he'll put together an effective budget that benefits most Americans? If you didn't remember or you were afraid to say you owned 3 vehicles, what does that say about you?

Actually sometimes I do forget I own 3 vehicles because 1 of them I don't really use. I don't think it says much about me except that one of my cars I don't drive very much and like to hang on to.

As a matter of fact I recently filled out my loan paper work for a house and forgot to include it on my assets list.

Was I trying to hide something?

Let's not forget again, McCain's wife is rich and there may be some houses that are her that he does not immediately account for. People like McCain and Obama and other rich politicians have someone else do their taxes for them.

I wouldn't be surprised if ANY politician got stuck on that question or something similar. It's a weak attack to try to pin McCain down on.


McCain got suckered. It doesn't mean Obama isn't out of touch like whoFARTED implied, his shit blinders, after all, Obama is pretty out of touch with his superstardom.

McCain got suckered? Because someone asked him how many houses he owned? ROFL... no offense but this is a weak question. It was about as weak as McCains attack on Obama being a superstar.

I'm not afraid to call BS distraction attacks when I see it. This House thing is just a distraction which I believe someone else already said. Everyone pull your heads out of the friggin television and get some common sense.

Until I see the candidates attacking each other on topics of substance I call Media Drama BS on this!

[daihashi]

If you love McCain that much, go fuck him.

No offense but I agree to a degree. Many people on the forums do regurgitate what they hear on TV. I know because many times I have it turned to CNN or another news station while I'm on the forums and I read word for word what I hear on tv sometimes.

I don't think there was any fault in calling people out on it; but he definitely went about it the most abrasive and wrong way about it that he could.

And he is right.. this is a web of distraction. People making a big deal out of this about McCain. And people making fun of Obama for obviously having a huge rally of support behind him and being a pop icon (which seems to be rapidly dwindling) are just Distractions. These jabs that the politicians take at each other are irrelevant.

On another note THC, what did you think about those links I posted about Obama? I'm curious to know. He seems to surround himself with people that just look plain loony or seem to be up to know good.

Bill Ayers
William Wright
Tony Rezko
Jim Johnson
Bernadine Dohrn

We have another group of individuals that people constantly criticize as being shady, corrupt or just loony. They're currently in the white house. Look at the people that are surrounding Obama......

[Psycho4Bud]

Not all these houses are for himself and the wife to live in; there is investment property there also. I'm sure when he was asked the question he had a general idea but just in case it's best to have the correct figures.

As for the amount of dollars that's invested in all this property, look at Mrs. McCain for that one. Can't blame a dude for hooking up with a good lookin' woman with a pocket full of money. The s.o.b. got lucky on that catch.

Have a good one!:s4:

[Bong30]

How many houses does Terresa Hienz Kerry own?

why didnt we hear anything about that in 04?




BTW who cares?

Back to the issues

Nobama wants to take capitol gains tax from 15% to 40%

[Iguana]

I think the 5 million was a stab at Obama because that was his income (more or less) last year.

[Iguana]

YouTube - McCain's Mansions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek3jAkx9m10)

He was asked how many houses he had and he couldn't recall..

Discuss

A better question would have been 'how many homes do you have?' McCain (actually his wife) holds real estate as part of their investments. So do a lot of other people. A friend of mine that started as a plumber and now owns his own contracting company owns about 24 rental units. He's far from being in the same legue as McCain. This whole line of questioning is stupid anyway. The investments are legal and ethical and it puts some of their money to work in the economy.

[thcbongman]

No offense but I agree to a degree. Many people on the forums do regurgitate what they hear on TV. I know because many times I have it turned to CNN or another news station while I'm on the forums and I read word for word what I hear on tv sometimes.

I don't think there was any fault in calling people out on it; but he definitely went about it the most abrasive and wrong way about it that he could.

And he is right.. this is a web of distraction. People making a big deal out of this about McCain. And people making fun of Obama for obviously having a huge rally of support behind him and being a pop icon (which seems to be rapidly dwindling) are just Distractions. These jabs that the politicians take at each other are irrelevant.

On another note THC, what did you think about those links I posted about Obama? I'm curious to know. He seems to surround himself with people that just look plain loony or seem to be up to know good.

Bill Ayers
William Wright
Tony Rezko
Jim Johnson
Bernadine Dohrn

We have another group of individuals that people constantly criticize as being shady, corrupt or just loony. They're currently in the white house. Look at the people that are surrounding Obama......

Point taken. I didn't intend to reguritate what I heard on the news, but those are the initials thoughts that come to mind. They are distractions, but my decision to vote either for Obama or McCain won't be based on such jabs.

The connections to these people have not been fully established other than in the case of Rev Wright. They're weak at best. However the fact he keeps getting his name associated with such people makes me wonder what kind of person Obama is. It'll be interesting to see if these names keep coming back in the coming months.

On another note if Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 40%, the man is insane.

[daihashi]

You know.. admittingly I just NOW watched that video posted because I thought the idea of faulting someone for the amount of homes they owned was just absolutely ridiculous.

Now that I've seen the video it seems even more ridiculous. The woman who's talking initially. Who's fault is it that she had to lose her first house?

She even mentions that her interest jumped up to 15.7% and she could no longer afford the interest. GUESS WHAT!!! She had an ARM. Just as the name suggests the rate is adjustable!!!!

Making wise fiscal decision is OUR OWN responsibility and I agree whole heartedly that it is a combination of lenders over-lending to people in addition to people not taking enough responsibility for themselves.

Lenders will usually only give you enough money to where it is at MOST 33% of your net Income, but that doesn't mean that you should spend 33% of your income on a home. A more ideal and responsible amount would be 20-25%.

I just picked up a mortgage myself recently. It is no more than 22% of my income (I made sure of this.. I didn't want to dedicate more than 1/4 of my paycheck to a home). It is a fixed rate so I will ALWAYS know what I'm paying.

It's almost disgusting to see Americans pointing their fingers at someone else because they couldn't maintain their own responsibility. A Mortgage is a binding contract and you should see to it that you can maintain your portion of the obligation prior to signing it.

If anyone was wondering why the economy is going downhill it's because of irresponsible people who make poor choices and then come running to the government when they screw up.

I'm sorry but I hold no sympathy for people who choose to live outside their means. Poverty and the poor/lower middle class I do hold sympathy for, but not for people who practice irresponsible behavior by borrowing more money than they can afford to hand out through a product that could fluxuate drastically on them.

[daihashi]

Point taken. I didn't intend to reguritate what I heard on the news, but those are the initials thoughts that come to mind. They are distractions, but my decision to vote either for Obama or McCain won't be based on such jabs.

The connections to these people have not been fully established other than in the case of Rev Wright. They're weak at best. However the fact he keeps getting his name associated with such people makes me wonder what kind of person Obama is. It'll be interesting to see if these names keep coming back in the coming months.

On another note if Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 40%, the man is insane.

It's not the people.. I agree there are no super SOLID ties but it's obvious that he's associated with them in the past.

What does bother me is why do MORE and MORE people keep popping out of the wood work in Obama's camp? Even if none of them have solid ties to Obama you have to wonder if birds of a feather flock together.

Also I think William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn both helped launch Obama's political career. I need to find the article that says that so I can source it. Tony Rezko was a long time friend who Obama helped get government funds for his slum housing. While it might not have been Obama's fault directly, it's questionable as to why he would help a known slumlord build cheap housing that was known to fall apart, foreclose or get condemned?

There is nothing concrete that says "Obama doesn't care.." or "Obama is full of it".. but if you surround yourself with enough of those type of people then it won't matter. Guilty by association.

[Bong30]

On another note if Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 40%, the man is insane.


Hi Bongman...Hope all is well

I was wrong.....he wants to double it, not triple it

15-28 now

28-40 second term...LOL



Obamaâ??s Truly Radical Capital Gains Tax Agenda

Every so often, a politician commits the horrible mistake of saying what he really thinks. This happened at the Democratic debate. Barack Obama has a very punitive proposal to nearly double the capital gains rate. When asked by one of the moderators whether this makes sense, especially given the historical evidence of big â??Laffer-Curveâ?� effects, Senator Obama dismissed concerns about falling revenue, arguing that a high rate was justified by â??fairness.â?� In other words, Senator Obama is so fixated on punishing success that he is even willing to reduce the amount of tax revenue flowing to Washington that he and his buddies can redistribute. This position is so radical that my Cato colleague Sallie James was distracted from her work on the free trade agreement with Colombia (Iâ??m not a foreign policy person, but thatâ??s apparently a country bordering Nepal and Mauritania) and demanded that I say something about the issue. But letâ??s first look at what Senator Obama actually said:

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what Iâ??ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

The Senator then proceeded to bash evil rich (sorry for the redundancy) people, so the moderator asked the question again:

MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on whatâ??s happening on Wall Street and how business is going.

This exchange is particularly revealing since Senator Obama actually admitted that a tax rate increase might lose revenue, but he held firm to his position that the capital gains rate should be increased from 15 percent to 28 percent. This reminds me of a conversation I had years ago with an economics professor from an Ivy League university. He told me that he once asked his left-wing colleagues whether they would support lower tax rates if they knew that tax revenues would rise. Most of them, he said, shared Obamaâ??s viewpoint that punishing success was more important to the statist ideology than increasing revenue for government.


^^^^^ this is what is wrong in America today^^^^^^^^

[McDanger]

Obama is supposed to be pretty well off too. But McCain is a pig. How can a senator own 8 homes? He can't. He's stolen fromtaxpayers and the people that actually have to work for a living. There is something sadly wrong with society when they see nothing wrong with multiple homes and $5 million salaries.
His wife owns a beer disributorship, that is where the money came from.
Obama doesn't even help out his brother that lives on either $12 or $52 per year(I heard both), he could set him up for 1000 years with less than 1 month of his salary.
I see nothing wrong with multiple homes or $5 mil salary, even tho that is not what he said.
What do you want to DICTATE to us as the maximum we can make?

[killerweed420]

I don't think the government has the right to dictate what you can own but they can certainly tax it to death. No one is this country needs to make more than 100,000 grand a year. Anything over that should certainly be in the 50% tax bracket. I'm not concerned with individual tax payers but I would like to see corporate profits taxed. Its not like they are getting the money ethically. Corporations make money 3 ways.1: They screw there employees out of a living wage. 2: They screw there customers with over priced products. Or 3: They do both.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I don't think the government has the right to dictate what you can own but they can certainly tax it to death. No one is this country needs to make more than 100,000 grand a year. Anything over that should certainly be in the 50% tax bracket. I'm not concerned with individual tax payers but I would like to see corporate profits taxed. Its not like they are getting the money ethically. Corporations make money 3 ways.1: They screw there employees out of a living wage. 2: They screw there customers with over priced products. Or 3: They do both.


Nobody should make over $100,000 a year? Sounds like socialism to the extreme. What incentive should there be, then, for anybody to work to aquire the skills of higher-paid possitions? I suppose if I spent 4 years in sciences, another 4 years in med school, another 2-7 in practicum, and another 3-5 in a specialization in medicine, as I would like to do one day, there should be no financial incentive or any kind for committing 18 or so years of my life to becoming a medical specialist. Economies and professions aren't built on good will and pixie dust you know.

[justastoner]

why does it matter how many houses McCain has? He is from a well established family and his wife has lots of cash, yet Obama lets his brother live in a hut? Hides all sorts of stuff and we have to go with his campaign or be labled as a racist? That is too funny!

all this feel good politics with the stench of affirmative action is nauseating and will be the death of this country.

how the heck could obama be considered presidential material? it is INSANE he knows nothign, has done nothing and is controlled by the far left and the weak minded.

change, change, change we can believe in! good grief. he will raise the hell out of taxes and has already said so, has NO energy plan and wants to 'talk' with the foreign powers that have said they want to either impose their ways on us or kill us yet this joker thinks he can rationalize with them as they get stronger every day (great way to build up your strength to fight the USA)

the full term abortions left to die is self explanatory but if its anti-bush/mccain I guess thats ok, isnt it obama supporters?

what about rev. wright and the ayers controversy? "oh thats ok,it isnt what it really is" seems to be the response from the dems (i call that pissing in my ear and tellin me its raining instead)

the lkist goes on and on about obama but nobody cares, and it appears to me alot of people on this board (and some ADMITTED) they care nothing about his economic/military/energy/future of USA plans, as long as they can have medical marijuana (which he is against). I call that STUCK ON STUPID. Giving up everything for Irie good times because your parents wont let you smoke pot or 'whatever' the reason is a sign of your own selfishness and immaturity.

just whak.

[Iguana]

I don't think the government has the right to dictate what you can own but they can certainly tax it to death. No one is this country needs to make more than 100,000 grand a year. Anything over that should certainly be in the 50% tax bracket. I'm not concerned with individual tax payers but I would like to see corporate profits taxed. Its not like they are getting the money ethically. Corporations make money 3 ways.1: They screw there employees out of a living wage. 2: They screw there customers with over priced products. Or 3: They do both.

Income taxes themselves are bad. Progressive income tax rates are right out of the Manifesto. A sales tax with adjustments for the truly poor would be better. In actuality, corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do. Prices are just adjusted to reflect the increased cost of doing business. Your view is a bit too cynical, even for me! ;)

[dragonrider]

This is more of an appearance problem for McCain than anything. There is nothing wrong with very, very rich people like McCain and his wife owning multiple properties for their own pleasure and for investments so that they can become even richer.

The problem for McCain is that he seems out of touch with the kinds of problems other people face. Voters who have seen their incomes go down over the past 8 years and who have seen the record numbers of people losing thier homes to foreclosure look at a person like McCain who owns so many houses he doesn't even know how many and who defines being "rich" as making over $5,000,000 a year, and they wonder if he understands their problems. Can he relate at all to having a lowered standard of living?

There is nothing wrong with being rich. But most people are not rich, and there is nothing wrong with them wondering if a rich guy will have their interests in mind as president.

As for the video --- that woman is a dumbass for getting into a mortgage that could adjust as high as 15% if she could not afford that kind of payment. That's just stupid. And the underwriters were stupid for not qualifying her for a payment based on a 15% rate if the rate could adjust that high. That's just stupid too, but the difference being that the underwriter should have been expected to know better.

[Surfnbird]

personaly im upset on the two party system. cuz i think both candidates are not fit to be president. i vote green party since when you vote green your telling the system your not happy with it. in many countries they have many politicial parties that have strong support.

[SFGurrilla]

On my note.

I don't agree with this video.

People do ANYTHING for money, I don't judge anyone.

Money is hard to come by in large quantities unless your smart.

McCain has a lot of it, he worked hard for what he has.

That lady took out a loan to big, has all the features in body behavior and speech of a liar.

You can't prove someone is evil, you have to see through actions and not assets. People need to stop premeditating things and look at the real deal/picture/reality of things.

Just my thoughts.

I wouldn't vote for Obama though if you payed me.

Thats another story.
:rastasmoke:

[dragonrider]

McCain actually owns so much property that if he just visited each of his houses and yelled, "Drill here! Drill now!" we'd probably find enough oil to last the rest of the century. That's why we don't have enough oil --- McCain's snapped up all the oil fields for land for his collection of manisons.

[Bong30]

You are wrong


TED TURNER....Commie nut job


Is buying up all the land

[daihashi]

You are wrong


TED TURNER....Commie nut job


Is buying up all the land

I'm pretty sure dragonrider was making a joke/being sarcastic because of the big ordeal people are making about this when they really shouldn't be.

[dragonrider]

I'm pretty sure dragonrider was making a joke/being sarcastic because of the big ordeal people are making about this when they really shouldn't be.

You got it. Making a little fun of the ridiculous mansion hoopla, and also making a little fun of McCain's "Drill here! Drill now!" thing.

[khronik]

You know.. admittingly I just NOW watched that video posted because I thought the idea of faulting someone for the amount of homes they owned was just absolutely ridiculous.

Now that I've seen the video it seems even more ridiculous. The woman who's talking initially. Who's fault is it that she had to lose her first house?

She even mentions that her interest jumped up to 15.7% and she could no longer afford the interest. GUESS WHAT!!! She had an ARM. Just as the name suggests the rate is adjustable!!!!

Making wise fiscal decision is OUR OWN responsibility and I agree whole heartedly that it is a combination of lenders over-lending to people in addition to people not taking enough responsibility for themselves.

Lenders will usually only give you enough money to where it is at MOST 33% of your net Income, but that doesn't mean that you should spend 33% of your income on a home. A more ideal and responsible amount would be 20-25%.

I just picked up a mortgage myself recently. It is no more than 22% of my income (I made sure of this.. I didn't want to dedicate more than 1/4 of my paycheck to a home). It is a fixed rate so I will ALWAYS know what I'm paying.

It's almost disgusting to see Americans pointing their fingers at someone else because they couldn't maintain their own responsibility. A Mortgage is a binding contract and you should see to it that you can maintain your portion of the obligation prior to signing it.

If anyone was wondering why the economy is going downhill it's because of irresponsible people who make poor choices and then come running to the government when they screw up.

I'm sorry but I hold no sympathy for people who choose to live outside their means. Poverty and the poor/lower middle class I do hold sympathy for, but not for people who practice irresponsible behavior by borrowing more money than they can afford to hand out through a product that could fluxuate drastically on them.
I actually... agree with this in its entirety. Don't buy stuff you can't afford, then blame the government when it bites you in the ass.


MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what Iâ??ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

The Senator then proceeded to bash evil rich (sorry for the redundancy) people, so the moderator asked the question again:

MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on whatâ??s happening on Wall Street and how business is going.
First of all, so much for the "liberal media". It was a good and valid question, but a capital gains tax cut only increases revenue temporarily. Investors know when there's going to be a tax cut, and wait until then to sell their stocks, so after a capital gains tax cut, there's a spike. But once everything levels out, there really is less revenue after the cut.


This exchange is particularly revealing since Senator Obama actually admitted that a tax rate increase might lose revenue, but he held firm to his position that the capital gains rate should be increased from 15 percent to 28 percent. This reminds me of a conversation I had years ago with an economics professor from an Ivy League university. He told me that he once asked his left-wing colleagues whether they would support lower tax rates if they knew that tax revenues would rise. Most of them, he said, shared Obamaâ??s viewpoint that punishing success was more important to the statist ideology than increasing revenue for government.


^^^^^ this is what is wrong in America today^^^^^^^^
First of all, what these professors supposedly said is ridiculous, but Obama doesn't share their viewpoints. Second of all, Obama has said he would raise the rate to between 20 and 28 percent. Since you think Obama wants to ruin America, you will of course assume he wants to make it as high as possible, but he would probably make it lower than 28%.


I don't think the government has the right to dictate what you can own but they can certainly tax it to death. No one is this country needs to make more than 100,000 grand a year. Anything over that should certainly be in the 50% tax bracket. I'm not concerned with individual tax payers but I would like to see corporate profits taxed. Its not like they are getting the money ethically. Corporations make money 3 ways.1: They screw there employees out of a living wage. 2: They screw there customers with over priced products. Or 3: They do both.
If no one could make more than $100,000, they would have no incentive to do anything once they made that. And your characterization of corporations is pretty ridiculous. Who do you think made the computer you made that post with? Our decent standard of living is due in large part to corporations. Trust me, even if you think living in a mud hut would be fun, their internet is really slow. :smokin:

[killerweed420]

Nobody should make over $100,000 a year? Sounds like socialism to the extreme. What incentive should there be, then, for anybody to work to aquire the skills of higher-paid possitions? I suppose if I spent 4 years in sciences, another 4 years in med school, another 2-7 in practicum, and another 3-5 in a specialization in medicine, as I would like to do one day, there should be no financial incentive or any kind for committing 18 or so years of my life to becoming a medical specialist. Economies and professions aren't built on good will and pixie dust you know.

Whats wrong with doing something because thats what you love to do? Money shouldn't be the motivating factor in this country but it is. Its not socialism its just making companies pay there fair share for ripping off employees and customers. People have the right to make as much money as they want in the US. But there is also a social obligation to not ripoff everybody to make the big bucks.

[khronik]

Whats wrong with doing something because thats what you love to do? Money shouldn't be the motivating factor in this country but it is. Its not socialism its just making companies pay there fair share for ripping off employees and customers. People have the right to make as much money as they want in the US. But there is also a social obligation to not ripoff everybody to make the big bucks.
A lot of things you need money to do. For instance, drug companies need millions of dollars to research new drugs. Power companies need money to implement emissions-controlling technology. Car companies need money to design more efficient engines, etc. Because corporate profits are taxed, most corporations reinvest most of the money they make anyway.

[Fugitive]

Whats wrong with doing something because thats what you love to do? Money shouldn't be the motivating factor in this country but it is. Its not socialism its just making companies pay there fair share for ripping off employees and customers. People have the right to make as much money as they want in the US. But there is also a social obligation to not ripoff everybody to make the big bucks.

Special rights are granted to huge corporations, government sanctioned profit.

[Bong30]

Ill go for the trifecta.


Whats wrong with doing something because thats what you love to do?
Nothing they are called hobbies

Money shouldn't be the motivating factor in this country but it is.

Yes it should be.... Its called a Profit Motive (look it up, and get back to me)

when you are living off the goverment tit, you wont EVER get out of bed.

when you think you might make some money... you get your ass up! thats why.


Its not socialism its just making companies pay there fair share for ripping off employees and customers.

My Dad and I own Our Own Business, and work our asses off. More Taxes would sink us. Im sure thats ok with you, cause we are and evil corp.



People have the right to make as much money as they want in the US.

Yes...maybe there is hope.


But there is also a social obligation to not ripoff everybody to make the big bucks.

its called "what the market will bear" along with Supply and Demand curves that will establish price. (P)

Look up Business ethics.
You see, the ripoff artist will go out of business.





I take it you are not an Entrepreneur.......

[khronik]

My Dad and I own Our Own Business, and work our asses off. More Taxes would sink us. Im sure thats ok with you, cause we are and evil corp.
If you own a business, you can write off just about everything as far as expenses, so I find that hard to believe.

[Bong30]

You are right higher taxes would be better. Those gas taxes should be higher since we are not using as much quanity, and getting the revenue from those gas sales. Right?

Dude Desiel at 489 a gallon almost sunk us. Remeber you have to pay it out FIRST before you can get it as a write OFF.

Big oil gets 8 cents per gallon
goverment what 14-50 cents per gallon for what ????

nothing... if big oil made record profits what did the goverment make?

[khronik]

You are right higher taxes would be better. Those gas taxes should be higher since we are not using as much quanity, and getting the revenue from those gas sales. Right?

Dude Desiel at 489 a gallon almost sunk us. Remeber you have to pay it out FIRST before you can get it as a write OFF.

Big oil gets 8 cents per gallon
goverment what 14-50 cents per gallon for what ????

nothing... if big oil made record profits what did the goverment make?
Gas prices are high due to market forces, not taxes. Even you must know that. And tax on gas and diesel generally goes towards the upkeep and construction of roads and bridges. Since you're buying a lot of gas/diesel, I'm pretty sure you're using these roads. If you're not, you can get the taxes back at the end of the year. My dad does this.

[McDanger]

Special rights are granted to huge corporations, government sanctioned profit.

This is total bullshit. Corporations do not have ANY rights, let alone SPECIAL RIGHTS. They do take advantage of the laws the way they are written, but anybody can do this ...INCLUDING YOU. JUST BECAUSE YOU DO NOT IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE CORPORATION

"Gas prices are high due to market forces, not taxes. Even you must know that. And tax on gas and diesel generally goes towards the upkeep and construction of roads and bridges. Since you're buying a lot of gas/diesel, I'm pretty sure you're using these roads. If you're not, you can get the taxes back at the end of the year. My dad does this."
Never heard of this one, but if you could provide some specifics, I would be willing to listen. He may be able to deduct fuel costs from income, but I seriously doubt he gets a refund of gas taxes.

"If you own a business, you can write off just about everything as far as expenses, so I find that hard to believe. "
Taxes are on profit after expenses are deducted, so higher taxes come right out of your back pocket. Expenses are money spent to run the business.(other that depreciation).

I cannot believe people can go through 4 years of college and not be taught the most basic of economic facts.

[khronik]

This is total bullshit. Corporations do not have ANY rights, let alone SPECIAL RIGHTS. They do take advantage of the laws the way they are written, but anybody can do this ...INCLUDING YOU. JUST BECAUSE YOU DO NOT IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE CORPORATION
Corporations do have some rights and some special rights, but they also have special liabilities too. Saying corporations have NO rights is even more wrong.


"Gas prices are high due to market forces, not taxes. Even you must know that. And tax on gas and diesel generally goes towards the upkeep and construction of roads and bridges. Since you're buying a lot of gas/diesel, I'm pretty sure you're using these roads. If you're not, you can get the taxes back at the end of the year. My dad does this."
Never heard of this one, but if you could provide some specifics, I would be willing to listen. He may be able to deduct fuel costs from income, but I seriously doubt he gets a refund of gas taxes.
My dad is a dairy farmer and uses gas for his tractor. Because he's not using the roads when he uses this gas, he gets all the taxes he pays on gas as a refund at the end of the year.


"If you own a business, you can write off just about everything as far as expenses, so I find that hard to believe. "
Taxes are on profit after expenses are deducted, so higher taxes come right out of your back pocket. Expenses are money spent to run the business.(other that depreciation).

I cannot believe people can go through 4 years of college and not be taught the most basic of economic facts.
He was saying that higher income taxes would make them go out of business. This can't be true, because income tax is based on profit. So therefore, they only pay income taxes if they are profitable.

[McDanger]

Corporations do have some rights and some special rights, but they also have special liabilities too. Saying corporations have NO rights is even more wrong.
Name a "right" that a business has.


My dad is a dairy farmer and uses gas for his tractor. Because he's not using the roads when he uses this gas, he gets all the taxes he pays on gas as a refund at the end of the year.
From who... fed or state?


He was saying that higher income taxes would make them go out of business. This can't be true, because income tax is based on profit. So therefore, they only pay income taxes if they are profitable.
This may technically true, but it sure is not worth the time and risk involved. There still may be some profit left after the gov't steals what they want, but working 60+hrs/wk for next to nuthin aint worth it.

[khronik]

This may technically true, but it sure is not worth the time and risk involved. There still may be some profit left after the gov't steals what they want, but working 60+hrs/wk for next to nuthin aint worth it.
If you make very little money, then your income tax is really, really low, if anything. The tax rate only starts to get high when your profits are also high.

[khronik]

Name a "right" that a business has.
Um... the right to incorporate, the right to sell stock, the right to property, the right to own patents, the right to confidentiality, the right to hire and fire employees, etc. Granted, some of these rights may be encroached upon by governments in certain situations, but for the most part they hold true.


From who... fed or state?
State for sure, and federal taxes i think. State sales tax he still has to pay, but that's true for everything else too. I'm not 100% sure about federal taxes though, I'll have to ask him at some point.

By the way, can you try and figure out how to use the QUOTE tags? It makes it easier to respond to your posts and figure out when you're actually responding to stuff I said.

[killerweed420]

Originally Posted by killerweed420
Whats wrong with doing something because thats what you love to do?
Nothing they are called hobbies

Money shouldn't be the motivating factor in this country but it is.

Yes it should be.... Its called a Profit Motive (look it up, and get back to me)

when you are living off the goverment tit, you wont EVER get out of bed.

when you think you might make some money... you get your ass up! thats why.


Its not socialism its just making companies pay there fair share for ripping off employees and customers.

My Dad and I own Our Own Business, and work our asses off. More Taxes would sink us. Im sure thats ok with you, cause we are and evil corp.



People have the right to make as much money as they want in the US.

Yes...maybe there is hope.


But there is also a social obligation to not ripoff everybody to make the big bucks.

its called "what the market will bear" along with Supply and Demand curves that will establish price. (P)

Look up Business ethics.
You see, the ripoff artist will go out of business.

Profit Motive. Isn't that just a fancy phrase for greed? There is nothing wrong with making money. In our society its a requirement to live. I'm just saying there is a difference between profit making and cheating people to get ahead. $4 a gallon for gas? Anyone being cheated there? If we didn't have a futures market which is just legal gambling gas would be $2 a gallon.

[seattlesmoke247]

oh noes !!!he has a bunch of houses what an evil bastard... i dont follow politics because it is rediculous shit like this.

[thcbongman]

You have to accept this about the free market. Greed is what drives it. Those people making big bucks are addicted to making money. It creates more jobs and they run the economy. I agree that the best business practices is to profit within a realm of social responsibility. The futures market is basically buying rights to future oil sites, it's a limited market to begin with, demand was bound to go up since we are dealing with a resource that depletes. If someone else wants to buy it, why shouldn't they? People have to adapt to the economic reality and get away from oil. $4 and increasing gas will do that. Let market forces play out. That's the only way we'll have change.

[dragonrider]

The futures market is basically buying rights to future oil sites, it's a limited market to begin with, demand was bound to go up since we are dealing with a resource that depletes.

The futures market is not buying the rights to future oil sites.

The futures market is a market of contracts to buy and sell a commoditiy at a set price on a future date. In the case of oil, it is a contract that says one party agrees to buy a barral of oil at a set price on a future date and another party agrees to sell the barrel of oil at that set price on that set date. There are also futures markets for all kinds of other commodities like corn and "pork bellies" (Whatever the hell that is! No futures market for snouts, just bellies). Futures markets are very important and useful tools for producers and users of commodities because futures contracts help to remove uncertainlty from their businesses.

For example a farmer might not know exactly how much he is going to be able to sell corn for at harvest time --- maybe there will be a crop failure and prices will be high becasue of low supply, or maybe there will be a bumper crop and prices will be low. A futures contract allows him to lock in the price. He won't be ruinied if the price drops, but he won't make a windfall if the price is high either. Same deal for a buyer of corn -- they can lock in a price and remove uncertainty.

There are also people who get into the market who are not producers or users of the commodity. They never actually want to own or handle the commodity --- only the contracts. They are speculators who get into the market to make money buying and selling contracts. Theoretically they help in the process of "price discovery."

It seems like the only way to make money as a speculator in a futures market is to actually be really good at guessing what the actual real market price of an item is going to be and how the price is going to move over time. Seems like the real supply and the real demand will set the real market price. But apparently there is something I don't understand, because you hear all this talk about how the price we are paying for gas is not the "real" price --- it's been market up by "speculators." I don't get that. I'm not actually sure how futures market speculation affects the ACTUAL price --- sems like supply and demade would always drive that, regardless of futures specualtion, and if speculators were trading overpriced contracts, the THEY would be the ones losing money. No one has been able to explain this to me.